Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Digital Photography > Do you miss anything about film?

Reply
Thread Tools

Do you miss anything about film?

 
 
Les Johnstone
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-04-2003
Hi All,

I've been reading through this group for a few weeks and picked up some
great tips and information, so a big thank you to all who post.

There are a couple of issues that I've never seen discussed in the list. It
might be they are just stupid questions! But I'm going to ask anyway. I
guess they might be opinions rather than questions.

I've just ordered a Nikon D100; at present I have an F90x and a F90.

A couple of things I can't quite get my head round.

1. Does anyone miss being able to choose the film type to suit the look of
the picture you want? I might choose Fuji Velvia for a landscape and Fuji
Relea for a portrait, but with digital it seems you are stuck with the one
look that the CCD has. Is it just a case of adjusting in Photoshop to get a
"look" As I'm not a skilled Photoshop users it's not a great option for me.
Do you guys miss being able to choose a film type?

2. I love B + W. I hope to shoot B + W on the D100. However I know that
enlarging a 35mm negative will eventually show the grain which I just accept
as part of the look of B+W. I think because you can se harp grain it give a
big print a certain quality. If I resample a D100 image in Photoshop so a
bigger image is still printed at 300ppi I won't se "jaggies" but the print
will just look slightly soft (say a 24 inch print). Do you guys think a 24
inch digital print will look "worse" that a 24inch from a B+W negative, do
you think the film grain is more aesthetically pleasing than the soft look
of a big digital print.

Many thanks for any advice

Les


 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Paul Rubin
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-04-2003
"Les Johnstone" <(E-Mail Removed)> writes:
> 1. Does anyone miss being able to choose the film type to suit the look of
> the picture you want?


Sometimes. I also miss super speed films, think TMZ 3200 pushed to
6400 or even higher, shot with that 35/1.4 MF Nikkor that I got on
Ebay just before the price of MF stuff completely collapsed...

> 2. I love B + W. I hope to shoot B + W on the D100. However I know
> that enlarging a 35mm negative will eventually show the grain which
> I just accept as part of the look of B+W.


It's not just a grain thing, you just can't get quite the same spectral
response by converting color images into B&W as you can with panchromatic
film, careful use of filters, and control over exposure and development.

Generally speaking though, at least for a snapshooter like me, the
main thing I've missed about film is you can get higher image quality
from a small film camera (e.g. Ricoh GR1 or even Minox EC) than you
can get from a digicam of comparable size.
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Gavin Cato
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-04-2003
A D100 is ready to go as soon as you turn it on, and a D1h will give you the
sort of speed you'd expect from a F100.



"Opentoe" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> I miss the speed of a film camera. Super fast and ready to go in seconds.
>
> "Les Johnstone" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:3f2da9a3$0$965$(E-Mail Removed).. .
> > Hi All,
> >
> > I've been reading through this group for a few weeks and picked up some
> > great tips and information, so a big thank you to all who post.
> >
> > There are a couple of issues that I've never seen discussed in the

list.
> It
> > might be they are just stupid questions! But I'm going to ask anyway. I
> > guess they might be opinions rather than questions.
> >
> > I've just ordered a Nikon D100; at present I have an F90x and a F90.
> >
> > A couple of things I can't quite get my head round.
> >
> > 1. Does anyone miss being able to choose the film type to suit the look

of
> > the picture you want? I might choose Fuji Velvia for a landscape and

Fuji
> > Relea for a portrait, but with digital it seems you are stuck with the

one
> > look that the CCD has. Is it just a case of adjusting in Photoshop to

get
> a
> > "look" As I'm not a skilled Photoshop users it's not a great option for

> me.
> > Do you guys miss being able to choose a film type?
> >
> > 2. I love B + W. I hope to shoot B + W on the D100. However I know that
> > enlarging a 35mm negative will eventually show the grain which I just

> accept
> > as part of the look of B+W. I think because you can se harp grain it

give
> a
> > big print a certain quality. If I resample a D100 image in Photoshop so

a
> > bigger image is still printed at 300ppi I won't se "jaggies" but the

print
> > will just look slightly soft (say a 24 inch print). Do you guys think a

24
> > inch digital print will look "worse" that a 24inch from a B+W negative,

do
> > you think the film grain is more aesthetically pleasing than the soft

look
> > of a big digital print.
> >
> > Many thanks for any advice
> >
> > Les
> >
> >

>
>



 
Reply With Quote
 
Gavin Cato
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-04-2003
For the velvia question, you'll find it's actually far more flexible with
digital once you get accustomed to post processing your shots in photoshop.

If you aren't an expert on photoshop - there are a few fantastic actions at
www.fredmiranda.com

In particular I suspect you'll like the "digital velvia" action - it's
fantastic. You can achieve the same results manually in photoshop if you
know how, but the action is cheap and simplifies it greatly. I use it a fair
bit to boost up the colours in an image when I need to, in the same way I'd
load a roll of velvia into a film camera if I wanted the colour saturation
of velvia.

Also grab the intellisharpen action as well, you'll need to sharpen the
files from the d100 a fair bit, they are intentionally soft for post
processing.

Gav




"Les Johnstone" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:3f2da9a3$0$965$(E-Mail Removed).. .
> Hi All,
>
> I've been reading through this group for a few weeks and picked up some
> great tips and information, so a big thank you to all who post.
>
> There are a couple of issues that I've never seen discussed in the list.

It
> might be they are just stupid questions! But I'm going to ask anyway. I
> guess they might be opinions rather than questions.
>
> I've just ordered a Nikon D100; at present I have an F90x and a F90.
>
> A couple of things I can't quite get my head round.
>
> 1. Does anyone miss being able to choose the film type to suit the look of
> the picture you want? I might choose Fuji Velvia for a landscape and Fuji
> Relea for a portrait, but with digital it seems you are stuck with the one
> look that the CCD has. Is it just a case of adjusting in Photoshop to get

a
> "look" As I'm not a skilled Photoshop users it's not a great option for

me.
> Do you guys miss being able to choose a film type?
>
> 2. I love B + W. I hope to shoot B + W on the D100. However I know that
> enlarging a 35mm negative will eventually show the grain which I just

accept
> as part of the look of B+W. I think because you can se harp grain it give

a
> big print a certain quality. If I resample a D100 image in Photoshop so a
> bigger image is still printed at 300ppi I won't se "jaggies" but the print
> will just look slightly soft (say a 24 inch print). Do you guys think a 24
> inch digital print will look "worse" that a 24inch from a B+W negative, do
> you think the film grain is more aesthetically pleasing than the soft look
> of a big digital print.
>
> Many thanks for any advice
>
> Les
>
>



 
Reply With Quote
 
Godfrey DiGiorgi
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-04-2003
Miss anything? No. I still shoot film when I want the imaging qualities
of film. That's very rare for 35mm and APS, a bit more common for Minox
submini or 6x6, when compared with digital. I just waste a lot less
time developing and scanning film, that's all.

The answer for both questions is Photoshop or other image editing
software. Any real photography with a digital camera requires the
photographer become conversant and skilled with the use of image
processing software because that's where all the options are. The
camera is a capture device, image processing is where the magic
happens. Just like the darkroom is where film images used to become
photographs...

Digital cameras have a different kind of versatility compared to film
cameras. Use each for its strengths and work around its weaknesses,
that's all. What's important are the photographs you produce.

Godfrey


In article <3f2da9a3$0$965$(E-Mail Removed)>, Les Johnstone
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> ...
> 1. Does anyone miss being able to choose the film type to suit the look of
> the picture you want? I might choose Fuji Velvia for a landscape and Fuji
> Relea for a portrait, but with digital it seems you are stuck with the one
> look that the CCD has. Is it just a case of adjusting in Photoshop to get a
> "look" As I'm not a skilled Photoshop users it's not a great option for me.
> Do you guys miss being able to choose a film type?
>
> 2. I love B + W. I hope to shoot B + W on the D100. However I know that
> enlarging a 35mm negative will eventually show the grain which I just accept
> as part of the look of B+W. I think because you can se harp grain it give a
> big print a certain quality. If I resample a D100 image in Photoshop so a
> bigger image is still printed at 300ppi I won't se "jaggies" but the print
> will just look slightly soft (say a 24 inch print). Do you guys think a 24
> inch digital print will look "worse" that a 24inch from a B+W negative, do
> you think the film grain is more aesthetically pleasing than the soft look
> of a big digital print.
> ...

 
Reply With Quote
 
Lisa Horton
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-04-2003


Les Johnstone wrote:
>
>>

> 1. Does anyone miss being able to choose the film type to suit the look of
> the picture you want? I might choose Fuji Velvia for a landscape and Fuji
> Relea for a portrait, but with digital it seems you are stuck with the one
> look that the CCD has. Is it just a case of adjusting in Photoshop to get a
> "look" As I'm not a skilled Photoshop users it's not a great option for me.
> Do you guys miss being able to choose a film type?


In a way, I miss that sometimes. I have my favorite films and know how
they will behave in various situations. But instead, Photoshop allows
me to give my pictures a variety of different looks, fairly easily.
It's not quite exactly the same as shooting different kinds of film,
IMHO, but it's a very similar capability. And I DO like very much
having all film speeds available at all times.

I read in a book once the suggestion that the student of photography
should select one film that they like, and learn intimately how that
film will render the types of subjects one shoots. I took this to heart
and found it very helpful in becoming able to know, as I shot, what a
photo would look like in the end. Up to the last films that I shot, I
would use a very small selection of films that I knew very well. I'm
just taking a break from film shooting, just for a short while I'm sure



>
> 2. I love B + W. I hope to shoot B + W on the D100. However I know that
> enlarging a 35mm negative will eventually show the grain which I just accept
> as part of the look of B+W. I think because you can se harp grain it give a
> big print a certain quality. If I resample a D100 image in Photoshop so a
> bigger image is still printed at 300ppi I won't se "jaggies" but the print
> will just look slightly soft (say a 24 inch print). Do you guys think a 24
> inch digital print will look "worse" that a 24inch from a B+W negative, do
> you think the film grain is more aesthetically pleasing than the soft look
> of a big digital print.


I am not fond of B&W, having been allowed to shoot only B&W for the
first few years of learning photography Even so, my impression is
that digital B&W is farther from matching 35mm than digital color is to
matching color 35mm film.

Lisa
 
Reply With Quote
 
Mxsmanic
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-04-2003
Gavin Cato writes:

> For the velvia question, you'll find it's actually
> far more flexible with digital once you get accustomed
> to post processing your shots in photoshop.


It's far more flexible, but within narrow limits. The CCD is indeed the
limiting factor. A given CCD will produce images with certain
characteristics. There are significant constraints on what you can do
with those images, no matter how much you fiddle with them in Photoshop.
To go outside those constraints, you need to replace the CCD.

In the case of film, you simply changed film, which had the same effect.
Current digicams don't have interchangeable image sensors, so this is a
drawback to digital for now.

> In particular I suspect you'll like the "digital velvia"
> action - it's fantastic.


It's nothing compared to real Velvia.



--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.
 
Reply With Quote
 
Gavin Cato
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-04-2003

"Mxsmanic" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...

> > In particular I suspect you'll like the "digital velvia"
> > action - it's fantastic.

>
> It's nothing compared to real Velvia.


I've used both a fair bit - you'd be surprised! Takes more fiddling than
loading a roll of velvia though obviously.


 
Reply With Quote
 
Woodward Price
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-04-2003
Gav,

I also just purchased a D100 and am wondering why it's default
sharpness level is so relatively low. Could you explain what you mean
by saying the D100 is "intentionally soft for post processing?"

Thank you.

In article <3f2dc3b3$0$95047$(E-Mail Removed)>,
Gavin Cato <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> For the velvia question, you'll find it's actually far more flexible with
> digital once you get accustomed to post processing your shots in photoshop.
>
> If you aren't an expert on photoshop - there are a few fantastic actions at
> www.fredmiranda.com
>
> In particular I suspect you'll like the "digital velvia" action - it's
> fantastic. You can achieve the same results manually in photoshop if you
> know how, but the action is cheap and simplifies it greatly. I use it a fair
> bit to boost up the colours in an image when I need to, in the same way I'd
> load a roll of velvia into a film camera if I wanted the colour saturation
> of velvia.
>
> Also grab the intellisharpen action as well, you'll need to sharpen the
> files from the d100 a fair bit, they are intentionally soft for post
> processing.
>
> Gav
>
>
>
>
> "Les Johnstone" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:3f2da9a3$0$965$(E-Mail Removed).. .
> > Hi All,
> >
> > I've been reading through this group for a few weeks and picked up some
> > great tips and information, so a big thank you to all who post.
> >
> > There are a couple of issues that I've never seen discussed in the list.

> It
> > might be they are just stupid questions! But I'm going to ask anyway. I
> > guess they might be opinions rather than questions.
> >
> > I've just ordered a Nikon D100; at present I have an F90x and a F90.
> >
> > A couple of things I can't quite get my head round.
> >
> > 1. Does anyone miss being able to choose the film type to suit the look of
> > the picture you want? I might choose Fuji Velvia for a landscape and Fuji
> > Relea for a portrait, but with digital it seems you are stuck with the one
> > look that the CCD has. Is it just a case of adjusting in Photoshop to get

> a
> > "look" As I'm not a skilled Photoshop users it's not a great option for

> me.
> > Do you guys miss being able to choose a film type?
> >
> > 2. I love B + W. I hope to shoot B + W on the D100. However I know that
> > enlarging a 35mm negative will eventually show the grain which I just

> accept
> > as part of the look of B+W. I think because you can se harp grain it give

> a
> > big print a certain quality. If I resample a D100 image in Photoshop so a
> > bigger image is still printed at 300ppi I won't se "jaggies" but the print
> > will just look slightly soft (say a 24 inch print). Do you guys think a 24
> > inch digital print will look "worse" that a 24inch from a B+W negative, do
> > you think the film grain is more aesthetically pleasing than the soft look
> > of a big digital print.
> >
> > Many thanks for any advice
> >
> > Les
> >
> >

>
>

 
Reply With Quote
 
David Eppstein
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-04-2003
I miss being able to use cheap 3rd-party all-in-one 10x zooms, 400 speed
film, and a flimsy Velbon tripod, and liking the results because I was
only printing 4x6's. Nowadays my DSLR shows up all the defects in my
equipment and technique.

--
David Eppstein http://www.ics.uci.edu/~eppstein/
Univ. of California, Irvine, School of Information & Computer Science
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
If you could add anything you want John Gagon Java 55 05-24-2006 11:16 PM
Thelma Todd, do we miss you! vidrare DVD Video 0 04-19-2006 12:28 AM
Where is Miss Manners when you need her? dwacon. Computer Support 1 08-19-2005 04:16 AM
Attention YOU cant afford to miss THIS! cw Computer Support 0 04-07-2004 12:20 AM
I MISS YOU My Phuong Tang Computer Support 9 10-22-2003 03:09 AM



Advertisments